Where plaintiff, following and adverse decision by a hearing examiner and
review by the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration
denying his application for benefits, was furnished written notice of his
right to initiate action in a Federal district court for review of the
decision within 60 days after the mailing to him of notice thereof but who
delayed filing of an action until 61 days after the mailing of notice,
held, the decision of the Appeals Council is final and is not
subject to judicial review, since the plaintiff failed to institute a
civil action for judicial review within the time limit provided by section
205(g) of the Social Security Act; nor did the request of the Secretary a
further extension of time under the Act.

[The Social Security Administration denied the claimant's application for
old-age insurance benefits, initially and after reconsideration, for lack
of insured status. A hearing was held before a hearing examiner of the
Administration resulting in a decision adverse to the claimant. This
decision, affirmed by the Appeals Council of the Social Security
Administration, became the final decision of the Secretary in the matter.
Written notice of the decision was sent by certified mail to the claimant
on November 18, 1965.

[This letter to the claimant advised him as follows:

If you desire of the hearing examiner's decision by a court, you may
commence a civil action in the district court of the United States in the
judicial district in which you reside within (60) days from this
date.

[Sixty-one (61) days later on January 18, 1966, the claimant filed an
action for judicial review in the United States District court for the
Western District of Texas, El Paso Division. The issue raised is whether
the claimant requested a timely judicial review within the meaning of
section 205(g) of the Social Security Act.

[In presenting the argument of the Social Security Administration before
the court, it was the position of the Social Security Administration that
judicial review of final decisions on claims arising under the Social
Security Act is provided for and limited by sections 205(g) and (h) of the
Act (42 U.S.C. 405(g) and (h)). The remedy provided by sections 205(g) and
(h) is exclusive and its relevant provisions read as follows:

(g) Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after
a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in
controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action
commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such
decision or within such further time as the Secretary may allow. * *
*

(h) The findings and decision of the Secretary after a hearing shall be
binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No
findings of fat or decisions of the Secretary shall be reviewed by any
person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided. *
* *. (Emphasis supplied.)

[There exist numerous case authorities which sustain the validity of
sections 205(g) and (h), supra, holding that the only civil action
permitted on any claim arising under the Social Security Act is an action
to review the "final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing," and
that such action must be commenced within 60 days after the mailing to him
(the claimant) of notice of such decision or within such further time as
the Secretary may allow.

[The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents
to be sued, and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define
that court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit. United States v.
Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586- 587 (1941). In awarding a review of an
administrative preceeding, Congress has power to formulate the conditions
under which resort to the courts may be had. American Power and Light
Co. v. S.E.C., 325 U.S. 584, 586-587 (1941). Where statute
creates a right and provides a special remedy, that remedy is exclusive.
United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328 (1915).

[The question concerning the claimant's right to judicial review in this
case is not unique or one of first impression. The matter has been
litigated many times in other cases where, as here, the plaintiff failed
to follow the statutory requirements and did not file his complaint
seeking judicial review of the Secretary's decision within the sixty day
allotted. There are at least three recent cases where, as in the present
situation, the plaintiff filed his complaint for judicial review on the
sixty- first day. In all three cases the court found it lacked
jurisdiction and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint. See Knight v.
Celebrezze, 238 F.Supp. 897 (1965); Zellor v. Folsom,
150 F.Supp. 615 (19656); Satterfield v. Celebrezze, 244
F.Supp. 190 (1965). In Satterfield, supra, Judge Hemphill cited the
rule which has been followed in all such cases and stated:

Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act contains the sole
jurisdictional basis for maintaining an action against the Secretary * * *
for judicial review of a final decision * * * on a Title II claim.
Congress has not waived the sovereign immunity from suit, except to the
extent and in the manner provided in that section. Moreover, Congress
expressly evidenced its intent to bar any other basis for jurisdiction of
a civil action on such a claim by section 205(h) of the Social Security
Act, quoted supra.

The complaint must show upon its face that it was filed "within sixty
days after the mailing of notice to the plaintiff" or the claim is not
cognizable. Saxon v. Celebrezze, 241 F.Supp. 152, 155 (W.D.
S.C. 1965). See also Jamieson v. Folsom, 311 F.2d 506 (6th
Cir. 1963), cert. denied 374 U.S. 487, Reh. Den. 375 U.S. 871.

[Additional authorities in support of the court's lack of authority to
accept jurisdiction of a request not timely filed, are as follows:

[Accordingly, the Secretary moved for summary judgment. On February 10,
1967, the District Court issued the following order.]

GUINS, District Judge:

On the 9th day of February, 1967 came on to be heard the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment and came the Defendant by its attorney and the
Plaintiff and his attorney, though duly notified, failed to appear.

And the court having considered said motion and heard the argument and
read the briefs of the defendant, finds that the plaintiff failed to
commence an action within the time provided by law after the action of the
Appeals Council.

And the Court therefore is the opinion that said Motion for Summary
Judgment should be granted.

It is therefore Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that Defendant's motion for
Summary Judgment be and hereby is Granted and that the Plaintiff, JACK S.
BRAUNSTON, take nothing.

Important Information:

Other Government Websites:

Follow:

External Link Disclaimer

You are exiting the Social Security Administration's website.

Select OK to proceed.

Disclaimer

The Social Security Administration (SSA) website contains links to websites not affiliated with the United States government. These may include State and Local governmental agencies, international agencies, and private entities.

SSA cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by such websites. If we provide a link to such a website, this does not constitute an endorsement by SSA or any of its employees of the information or products presented on the non-SSA website.

Also, such websites are not within our control and may not follow the same privacy, security or accessibility policies. Once you visit such a website, you are subject to the policies of that site.